getting your kids technologically connected at a young age will help them build the tools they need to survive in the modern world, off the amish farm, out of the kibbutz, away from the teepee, and preventing them from accessing the technology will merely retard their development in a changing world.

the times they are a changin'. eh? 

you adapt, or you die.

don't hobble your childrens' development by blocking them from the real world. give them access to the tools they need to thrive and survive at a young age. help them adapt. don't condemn them to stagnation.

i might even go so far as to characterize banning your kids from technology as a form of child abuse. it is rigid, conservative parenting and an idea that has no place in a free society.

i have no remote moral or social opposition to "enriching tech bros". technology makes our lives better. i do not resist it, i embrace it.

if the premier of manitoba wants to be a primitivist, he can go live with the amish or sleep in a teepee. that's his choice. i don't care. that's not my problem.

but he has no right to enforce his beliefs or his values on other people, and he can go fuck himself for thinking he does.

he can take his bullshit law and cram it up his asshole.

manitobans should respond with open and rigid contempt by ignoring any law as outside of a basic social contract and entirely unconstitutional. they will not police their children's behaviour online - their children are free to do as they choose.

i was feeling better this week but i just crashed near the end of the week.

i'm told the crackheads "broke in" upstairs on thursday night, that they took a shit and that they basically then left. i'm pretty sure they smoked something up there first. it was explained to me as drug addicts on autopilot and that they just needed to take a shit and couldn't process what they were doing.

i am not convinced they broke in but i did crash on thursday night and that explains why. i've also been told that the upper unit got rented. if somebody moves in on may 1st, the situation had better clear up.

there's two working parts here - an owner and a manager. i'm virtually certain that the manager is a drug addict, and was doing drugs with the crackheads, although i have no clear evidence that he was selling it to them. i don't know about the owner. the owner seems clean, seems distant and seems reasonable. he doesn't seem to be involved. but that's just the point

i'm a reasonable man.

right. those are the ones running the finances. business is business. so it goes.

i'm being careful about this.

if somebody moves in on may 1st, it should be the end of it. if this continues, i have to get out of here.

i can tell you this son of a bitch would have a hard fucking time forcing his opinions and values on my kids. there would be no such ban on social media or ai in my house.

this guy is an overbearing asshole that thinks he has some right to tell people how to live. and a piece of shit. he can go fuck himself as far as i'm concerned.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/manitoba-social-media-age-restrictions-9.7177470

i understand that peaceful coexistence with the terrorist occult state of iran is impossible. this is not in the set of possible outcomes, and pretending that it is is retarded. all that trump has done is let the chinese set up anti-air defenses, let hezbollah import more missiles, let iran plan more terrorist attacks and extend the war by however long it takes to undo that. by opting for a negotiation instead of a prosecution, he completely fucked the whole thing up.

but even if it were possible, it would be unacceptable.

i don't want to coexist with the terrorist death cult in iran. i don't want to share a planet with these people.  they're intolerable. i want them to cease to exist.

mariah carey may have a place in the pop music hall of fame, but she is not a rock and roll musician, by any remote stretch of the term, and does not belong in the rock and roll hall of fame. her rejection is correct and they should stop nominating her.

https://www.cbc.ca/listen/live-radio/1-14-day-6/clip/16209391-critics-its-put-mariah-carey-rock-roll-hall

you can't just show up out of nowhere, steal people's land and enforce your concepts of land ownership on them. that was always illegal under british colonial law. even the fucking romans knew that was wrong, and the romans had some broader problems with right and wrong. the romans would have decided it was illegal, the british would have decided it was illegal and canada has upheld an ancient precedent in confirming it's illegal. something i learned recently is that the british adaptation of roman law was actually formulated by francis bacon in the early 17th century.

the unilateral imposition of european fiefdom concepts of land ownership on british columbia was always illegal. even according to the 1763 proclamation, it was illegal; the proclamation claims the land for the british, so that other european powers cannot claim it for themselves, but it also says that the indigenous groups have to sell the land to the crown, and can only sell it to the crown. it is a land claim, but it doesn't extinguish indigenous title.

it is absolutely baffling that the government in bc, which is supposed to be a left-wing government, is having difficulty with this. 

not only is it not new, it very well might be the oldest law in canada.

this really isn't difficult to understand.

british columbia is stolen land. there is no legal basis for canadian sovereignty over most of bc - the british just stole it from the indigenous groups. the closest thing to legal justification for canadian sovereignty over british columbia is the royal proclamation of 1763, where the british king unilaterally declared sovereignty over the west of north america, but this would be considered absurd if interpreted as modern law. that's it. there's nothing else to cite. it's that flimsy. in today's world, which is very far removed from the wild west of cowboys and indians, that theft has been recognized and understood as illegal. as such, the government has no legitimate legal basis for passing any laws in the region at all.

british columbia is technically an illegal occupation, under international law.

this is not new. it is not a result of the dripa. it did not develop over the last ten years. the indigenous groups have never accepted canadian sovereignty, and the courts recognized it decades before dripa. dripa developed out of a completely different process - it is international law. however, in some sense, dripa was also a codification of existing precedent. 

nor does bc need to reinvent the wheel here. eby is apparently simply ignorant of the development of this legal process in his own jurisdiction, which wrote the rules for how this developed elsewhere. there is actually a workable framework for indigenous title allodial land rights called the nis'gaa agreement. this has already been negotiated, and it's up to eby's government to pull their head out of their ass, enforce the rule of law and follow the framework.

the days of the wild west are over.

send eby the memo. he seems to have missed it.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/bc-dripa-crisis-point-9.7175559